Cheat and Let Cheat
Traditionalists would probably say that cheating in any case is wrong. Now, while i'd largely agree with such a claim, I think it's a bit close-minded to apply the same principles universally, regardless of context. This seems actually to be big conundrum with morality and its constant re-definition. It's preposterous to try and coneive of a moral framework that is universally applicable, regardless of time and context. This also seems to be the big fallacy of modern law...although I think contemporary civilizations have gotten alot better about adapting their law to context (i.e. not chopping off your hands for snatching a bushel of bananas because you genuinely needed it to survive). Since we've pretty much deduced that the term "gaming" has a rather wide umbrella, and can be applied to a large breadth of circumstance and rule sets. In keeping with this same vein of thought, cheating in games is a bit more of a loaded issue than your friend unplugging your snes control in the middle of a heated street-fighter bout. Yes, cheating in the aforementioned scenario is wrong, and absolutely morally reprehensible, and I believe federal statutes should hold that such trickery can be met with a reprise by my fist to the transgressor's face....if only.

Cheats seem to fill the modern-day landscape. It's almost as if it's bread into us as modern Americans to shrug off mistruths and misdoings. And if that's a bit of an overstatement, then the desensitization to immoral actions has at least found its way into a large portion of the people i've met. I don't claim to be an innocent, but for the cases of this posting i'll take the observer's high ground....basically, i'd say it's safe to say that contemporary moral standards are not exactly what one might call (from a perspective transcending time) SATISFACTORY. So, in this respect (and to ease off of the poor bush i've been beating), i'd say cheating in a game is principally immoral. Again, however, let's stay within context with any examination of questionable moral action; What if bringing cheating into a game actually enhances the enjoyability to all, not just for the cheater? I know this case must not me very frequent, but what if the cheater actually brings a much-wanted, much-needed element of transformative play into the mix?

It seems to be a matter of deciphering acceptable forms of "cheating" (however few and far between they may be) from the rest. A few bad apples do not necessarily need to ruin the bushel. Why, if Diablo trainers had never been invented, I would only had a lesser degree of generic low-quality hack-n-slash fun. The trainer element of the game basically opened up a survival of the cheatest sort of online social contract, where the weak sheep were those that took the moral high ground and refused to use trainers. And putting "NO TRAINERS" on your game listing on battlenet only increased your chance of getting raped by a cheater in sheep's clothing. While the original brand of Diablo fun would've lasted longer, I am much more grateful for the transformative play that was allowed when you could, for instance, walk through walls and hide INSIDE wirt's wooden leg. There's nothing like calmly doing a dungeon run when all of a sudden out of the left corner of your screen comes a max-level player, literally on fire with some protection buff and glowing alot becasue of it. As the sweeping wave of lightening-destruction kills all the monsters surrounding you (but not you, if you were wise and bought into the trainer contract), you suddenly realize that perhaps this whole "cheating" thing isn't as bad as it's all cracked up to be. If it can bring a new brand of fun, at minimal expense, then I believe that cheating is not only permissible, but should be encouraged. The problem is determining in which scenario this holds true. I know there were plenty of gamers who thought Diablo's multi-player aspect was nearly ruined by trainers; Personally, I didn't see it as that big of a deal. I saw cheating as not only acceptable, but also quite fun. Others disagreed, so the moral rightness of the situation was questionable at best.